UK/US Chart Discussion
 

Mod note: Moved from the WAN Chart thread. Carry on the debate here, whilst playing nicely, as its an interesting topic. Brian


Here is my rational explanation.

If the UK charts were so much more important, Jon would have continued to make a TD and DA sequel. Instead, he apologized for DA.

So apparently the US charts mean more to Jon and not because is from the US but because he knows where the bigger market is. (Or probably a little of both.)

This translates to me that the US Charts are more relevant.

Aloha !

No, that's not what I meant. Any band ought to try to get to number 1, and any band saying the number 1 spot doesn't matter to them anymore is flat out lying. The band will want that number 1 in the U.S.A., but down the line they'll know that if they hit that number 1 spot in the U.K. it'll be for the books and will give them great worldwide publicity.

Ever since British music became popular again somewhere in 1995 the Billboard Hot 100 have lost it's value in regards towards what's relevant nowadays. This started back in the sixties when The Beatles became huge overnight in America. Suddenly artists were able to top their home market and that big country overseas. This has been going back and forth with either country trying to replicate the successes had by a certain band overseas.

Grunge really was the last thing America offered that made heads turn their way though. Once Britpop took over, the rest of the world started looking at the U.K. again as to see what was happening in music. Yet where it was usually just one era of music the Spice Girls quickly followed and America had no real answer to this as they were still focussing on trying to win over audiences by coming up with bands similar to Blur, Oasis and the likes.

Things can change any day though. Something fresh and new could show up in America and people will focus on American music again and then make the U.K. charts a lot more irrelevant in regards to what's currently relevant. Hence most artist wanting to top both of the charts and no one caring for Germany, or Holland for that matter. :)

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

I wasn't, for my part, trying to say that the US charts were more relevant. I have no evidence to support a theory one way or the other, and I don't feel Seb does either. I felt as though he was using his opinion as fact, which whether he wants to admit it or not, he does quite frequently on these boards. I know he's trying to draw me into a pissing match with him asking me to point out where "this" was said or "that" was said. I just don't see the point anymore. Call it a question of Message Board Banter lost in translation or different personalities, whatever.

Excuse me.. what? The last quote from Jon regarding DA that I heard, and this was within the last few years, was "Destination Anywhere was art," which is exactly what it was.

Yes, let's apologize for doing the solo album we did and then do 3 tracks from it in a live show where we have the freedom to play exactly what we want to play more than 10 years after release.

You would do well to get over your dislike of the album and wrap your head around it. It's very much a loved album by it's creator.

That's stated a little differently than your initial statement...

It's obvious that the markets sway in different directions.

Here is the key question(s) that I know you won't or can't answer. What is going on right now in the UK? What is going on in the US right now? And between the two, what makes the UK more relevant right now?

I want specifics. Groups, bands, examples. And here, I'll put a smile face at the end of this to show that I mean no harm too. :)

Aloha !

It's also the last record he wanted to make because he wanted to make it, as opposed to making a record he thought others expected him to make. It was my favourite back when I was just 15 and although I can see its flaws now I still see it as the last great record Jon ever did that actually has a start, middle and an end was not based around hit singles.

That's because once I did give my initial statement I got jumped on right away.

The reason why the U.K. is deemed more relevant is because it's been almost 20 years now since America delivered a band that made everyone focus on them. Nirvana really are the last American band that changed the life's of teenagers. I'm not saying America hasn't offered big acts since then, but none of them changed the industry. Even when nu-metal arrived and for a brief moment Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park had their big hits they were still more succesful overseas than they were at their home turf.

A market only gets considered irrelevant once someone else comes up with something new. America hasn't delivered anything that set the world on fire since Nirvana. Yet from the U.K. there's been Britpop, there's been the Girl Power thing, there's been Coldplay and there's Muse.

The real problem with America is that right now, there actually isn't anything going on. Sure, there's various artists that are huge over there and big over here, but right now America's still focussing on what's popular in the U.K. and try to come up with an answer, but it's just more of the same really.

I'm not saying American music isn't as good as I obviously like a lot of bands from America, and every new act steals something from its the one popular a few years earlier much like painters changed their style to reply to what was going on in art, but right now it's just not changing anything. American music changed from being influenced to just flat out copying. This has nothing to do with American people as there's plenty of stuff going on at a smaller base, but pretty much comes down to investors not willing to take the risk to invest money in something new and thus radio not being able to play the more risky stuff. The American music has become too commercial for it's own good and thus radio listeners are a lot less willing to accept new things. I wouldn't be surprised if next year offers a great female vocalist singing piano ballads who is "the next Adele". Who, once again, happens to be from the U.K.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Dude, I'm not saying you're "right" or "wrong". I already pointed that out. I'm also not dancing around anything. And nothing hit me in the face. Just the opposite. The replies that came in asked you to explain why the UK chart was more relevant, yet you still haven't given anyone a legitimate answer. I'm just saying this is something I feel you do. You take your opinion and state it as a fact. As for personal attacks, I never once called you any names. I said that you spew a lot of shit on here. And you do. Are you going to deny that?

It's a message board and I accept that not everyone is going to agree and there are going to be spirited discussions. Sorry if that bothers you.

As for Sexx and the whole Bowie thing, apples and oranges. He's known to be a troll on these boards and posts for no other reason than to piss people off. And honestly, THAT is who the ignore button is meant for. I think you bring a lot of good discussion to the board. I just feel as though, as I said, you like to use your opinions as facts. If you don't want me to bother replying to you, then just ask and I won't. :-)

i dont think he brings good discussions to the board. He loves disagreeing for the sake of it. As per usual.

This conversation is utter bollocks, but i'll have my worth. The Foo Fighters resurgence 10 years ago was massive. That was since Nirvana. This turned them from being from a small arena band to a big stadium band.

In the UK we always look up to America and its music. Its always "they're great over here, but until they crack it in the states..." Way its always been here. I dont see that attitude across the pond at all. Even if they're turning out junk like Taylor Spliff and Justin Boober.

You must not come here very often because I always stick up for DA. It is a great album....

Jon never spoke the actual words "I apologize for DA". That was a power phrase however he did make sarcastic references towards it. I've seen a few interviews where he called it "art" and then gave a half smile afterwards meaning, read between the lines.

And your comments about the 3 tracks he played means nothing. He also played tracks off of The Power Station Years.

He was proud of that CD, no doubt. I think the art references could be in terms of sales figures but not because he didn't like it. It was the first CD, that Rolling Stone Magazine gave a good review for.

Not that I have much to add to this anyway, but I'm not sure I quite get the point of this discussion. Are you trying to establish which charts are more relevant? Of course the US are more relevant. Bigger market - nr 1 in the states means more copies sold, more money made, more people touched etc. Therefore, every band would prefer to top the US charts over UK, Germany or Australia.

Is the debate about the quality of the music that tops either of the charts? There is no difference really. Charts SUCK either side of the pond. Anecdotally, I remember listening to a local radio station in my hometown and the DJ goes something like: "How can a country that gave us the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath fall for the Cheeky Girls? How is that possible???" and then played some Cheeky Girls (who in fact are from Cluj! :P)

Is it about the power to set trends? It's not the charts who have the 'power' to do that. Trends are set by media mostly…all that charts do is reflect that. Yes, they are then used to gain more media exposure and that brings you back to point 1 - topping the charts in the US leads to more media exposure in a bigger market.

I think where the discussion is actually aiming at is what country has more potential to be a trend-setter. Frankly speaking, it has always been the UK. Since the Beatles really. Most of what the US has ever done was to respond.

The Beatles - The Beach Boys
Led Zeppelin - Aerosmith
David Bowie - Alice Cooper
The Sex Pistols - The Ramones
T-Rex - The New York Dolls
Iron Maiden - Metallica
Def Leppard - Bon Jovi

Most of what happened between Elvis and Nirvana was UK driven. Did the charts reflect that? Sometimes, not often though, really not often. And since the whole digital revolution in music, who cares really? No one! Yes, it's a nice achievement to be nr1, but it doesn't mean shit. I personally can't remember a single Nr1 either from the UK or from the US in the last couple of years other than Adelle. Who is from the UK and even Slash thinks is great.

Anyhow - enough rambling. What is the point of this discussion?